Stacking the Deck Against Creation Science

The negative image of creation science portrayed in the widely viewed Inherit the Wind was
considerably reinforced by the pretrial publication of some critical reviews of creation science. A good example is
the article, "A Response to Creationism Evolves," published in Science just a few weeks before the
Arkansas trial. This article (Lewin 1981) details the results of two scientific meetings, organized for the purpose of
combating the spread of creation science in America. The first was sponsored by the National Academy [p. 91] of
Sciences (NAS) and held on October 19, 1981. The second meeting was organized by the National Association of
Biology Teachers (NABT) and held on October 20, 1981. At these meetings, both held in Washington, DC, certain
influential evolutionary scientists made it appear that creation science was a threat, not just to evolution, but to all
of science. They issued a call for opposition to creation science at every opportunity. William Mayer, Director of
the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, Louisville, Colorado, is quoted as declaring:

The whole structure of science is under attack. And it's not just biology that's in danger, it's all of science:
geology, physics, astronomy. The creationists are attempting to mandate what is appropriate for study and what
is not. (Lewin 1981, 635)

These alarmist remarks were made before a sympathetic audience. Ironically, these evolutionists failed to see
that their own staunch opposition to the teaching of evidence for creation was in itself an attempt to mandate what
is and what is not appropriate for study. Note that the emphasis here is not what is truth, but how to maintain the
status quo in science. This was further evident when Niles Eldredge, a curator at the American Museum of Natural
History in New York, used scare tactics to oppose funding for creation science:

The creationists have already made moves to secure funding for so-called creation science on an equal footing
with evolution science. This should be sufficient to convince my colleagues that the house really is on fire.
(Lewin 1981, 635)

Other pretrial articles that provided the ACLU with psychological advantage appeared in the December 1981
issue of the popular monthly Science 81. (This issue, devoted primarily to a formidable attack on the
"fallacies" of creation science, was deemed so important that copies were given to the National Science Teachers
Association for distribution to its members.) An excerpt from the article "Farewell to Newton, Einstein,
Darwin. . ." shows how the authors, Allen Hammond and Lynn Margulis, attempt to convey the
impression that creation science is in direct conflict with true science:

All scientific theories, inevitably, are tentative answers to questions about nature. . . . This
characteristic of continually revising ideas to reflect the world as it is observed is what makes science
science.

In contrast, the creationists start with a "theory" or faith in a particular description of nature drawn not from
observation but from the Bible. To argue—as the creationists do—that a theory must be true rather
than [p. 92] that the evidence compels one to it as the best choice is fundamentally antithetical to science. To be
unwilling to revise a theory to accommodate observation is to forfeit any claim to be scientific. For it is not
facts or theories that are essential to the growth of science but rather the process of critical thinking, the rational
examination of evidence, and an intellectual honesty enforced by the skeptical scrutiny of scientific peers. By
these standards creationism is not science. Indeed, creationists do not participate in the scientific
enterprise—they do not present papers or publish in scientific journals. And it is precisely because
creationists present themselves as "scientific" that they do most harm to the educational system. (Hammond and
Margulis 1981, 57)

The claim that creationists are unwilling to revise a theory to accommodate observation is nothing more than
massive character assassination of all creation scientists. I have already referred to one revision in my own work
that occurred in reference to the previously discussed report on superheavy elements. And the claim that creation
scientists do not publish in scientific journals is directly contradicted by my own publications.

Another writer, John Skow, also presented uncomplimentary views of creation scientists in his companion
article in the same issue of Science 81:

The scientific creationists have been on the scene for something more than a decade now, and it is clear that
their obduracy is not the result of insufficient education. It is a resolute, structured ignorance, maintained by
choice and against odds. . . . They must find "scientific" reasons for the scientifically
unreasonable, and by heroic twisting of evidence, they do. . . . Their system of belief resists
unwanted information. (Skow 1981, 59)

The question could be raised: Just who is attempting to "twist" the evidence? Skow claims that creationists
resist unwanted information. His accusations are quite incongruous, for both his and the previously quoted article
fail to mention the persuasive evidence for creation published in my scientific reports. Is it possible that he may
have the "system of belief" that "resists unwanted information"?

This widely distributed issue of Science 81 greatly reinforced the negative view of creation science
which had been given such impetus at the Scopes trial. My colleagues at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory who
saw this issue were doubtless hoping that I would not be drawn into center stage in this rapidly developing
controversy over creation and evolution.